Cricket World Cup Thread
Posted 09 June 2003 - 03:01 PM
Lynn McConnell - June 9, 2003
Australia's Test captain Steve Waugh received another honour today, but this time it was off the field, when he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday Honours List.
The award was not only for his services to Australian cricket, but also in recognition of his charity work for the Udayan orphanage in India.
Waugh is now Australia's most-capped player (160 Tests), and the scorer of most Test centuries for them with 30, and this award is the latest in a string of achievements in his long career.
Waugh, who inspired Australia's complete dominance of the world game, both in Tests and ODIs, has seen to it that the respect for all that Australian cricket represents has been maintained through the modern era of players. Few players have a feel for the game's past as Waugh does, and this latest honour is a reflection of the role he has played in ensuring the flame is carried from that past to the future not only on the field but in the maintenance of the game's traditions.
He is joined on the Australian Honours List this year by former West Indian international Sir Garfield Sobers, who had strong links with Australia in the 1960s while he played for South Australia in the Sheffield Shield. He was also made an Officer of the Order of Australia.
Former internationals Norman O'Neill and Peter Philpott also received the Medal of the Order of Australia, as did a brace of administrators in David Richards, who recently stood down as chief executive of the International Cricket Council, and John Mitchell, the former Melbourne Cricket Club president.
Posted 10 June 2003 - 09:46 AM
As for the match between WI and SL it was so good it kept me away from Pravda. Lara was out for a duck caught behind first ball but for some reason decided not to walk. Billy Bowden of NZ, the umpire kept his crooked finger inside his pocket and was responsible for two atrocious decisions. WI would have been 3 down for 63. But that, as they say, is cricket.
Posted 10 June 2003 - 03:21 PM
Posted 13 June 2003 - 12:32 PM
By Gulu Ezekiel
Saturday, 07 June , 2003, 11:21
It was a few years ago that one of the Capital's celebrity feminists stormed up to me at a party and wagging a finger in my face, demanded to know why cricket's jargon of lbws and hit-wickets was so obtuse and difficult for women to comprehend.
"This is a male conspiracy," she thundered righteously in my direction, "to confuse women and keep them away from cricket." My response left her speechless, for probably the first time in her life. "Why is that women cannot understand cricket when they can figure out rocket and nuclear science?" I responded.
On the eve of the World Cup last February a female columnist dusted off that old chestnut that mysteriously crops up every four years about how the males in the household would waste the next few weeks glued in front of the TV, talking the arcane language of sport that invariably left the female of the species sidelined and in the dark.
One wonders if the two women in question are now part of that hallowed and recently converted "46%" which we are now reliably informed comprised the female segment of total viewership for the World Cup cricket.
Problem is almost every quote from this "46%" of the viewership has had "cute" embedded somewhere in it as in "Rahul Dravid is so cute." There have even been "cute quotient charts" in the media ranking cricketers not by their playing abilities but their looks.
Sure, cricket is now hot and the Tendulkars, Dravids and Zaheers of Indian cricket are the new pin-up boys replacing those stale movie stars who anyway always seem to be fighting among themselves when they are not busy churning out flop after flop.
The game has accordingly been trivialized and glamourised in what I call the "bimbo-isation" of cricket.
Of course it was the TV channel that had the exclusive rights in India to the telecast that made it clear from the start that its main intention was to make the coverage "different" in a bid to attract more female viewers.
Their female anchor who had initially sportingly made it clear that her knowledge of cricket was pretty basic ended up claiming in her "diary" in a post-World Cup magazine special that she was being asked her opinion of the Indian team's chances before the final by the media.
"If I was so wrong for the job and I SUPPOSEDLY (Emphasis mine) didn't know a darn thing about the game, how come people are suddenly interested in my viewpoint?" she asked indignantly!
It reminded me of an incident a few years ago when I was standing behind the "nets" while the teams were hard at practice. The ball came rolling in our direction and the female sports journalist standing next to me picked it up and tried to throw it back. It rolled a few inches even as she turned to me and groaned: "I did not realize it (the ball) was so big and so hard." The response I gave is unprintable!
Yes, as the saying goes, "Cricket is a hard game played with a hard ball". But only those who have been hit by one at high speed realize just how hard it is and how much it can sting (and worse).
Right now the Indian team is on a "high", the glamour quotient is spiraling out of control and "46%" of the World Cup's viewers are female (or so we are reliably informed). Just how many of those "46%" will stick with the Indian team when it invariably goes through its ups and downs and just how many of those "46%" know the difference between an off-break and an off-cutter are golden questions.
When it was announced that Indian cricket's most eligible bachelor (or so we are told by the "46%"), Rahul Dravid had decided to ditch his single status, we had 'national' newspapers carrying page one stories of the family of the bride and poor Rahul being hounded day and night by the media.
The bride's family was also trapped on the Nagpur railway station platform on their way to Bangalore (Rahul's hometown) by a TV crew which tried its best to stick its mike and camera under the nose of the poor young lady and her hapless relations.
That "46%" can surely take pride and credit in steering the Indian media in this paparazzi direction.
But true cricket fans will tell you (and there are definitely some female fans in this category who surely cringe at such a depiction) that such "bimbo-isation" will only bring ruin to the game.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users